Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that defendant-church-affiliated employee benefit plan did not qualify for exemption from ERISA regulations for retirement plans established by actual churches. While church retirement plan is exempted from ERISA regulations in order to prevent excessive government entanglement with religion, defendant’s retirement plan did not qualify as church plan under ERISA, even though defendant was affiliated with Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and United Church of Christ, since defendant was not church, and defendant’s retirement plan was not established by church. As such, defendant’s retirement plan was subject to ERISA regulations.

Dist. Ct. erred in sentencing defendant to 98-month term of incarceration on drug distribution and conspiracy charges, where Dist. Ct. relied on section 2D1.1(a)(2) of USSG to base defendant’s offense level at 38, after finding by preponderance of evidence that defendant sold heroin to third-party, who subsequently died from using said heroin. Section 2D1.1(a)(2) will increase base offense level only if “the offense of conviction” establishes that death resulted to third-party, and Ct. agreed with defendant that section 2D1.1(a)(2) did not apply, since she was not convicted of causing third-party’s death. Moreover, section 2D1.1(a)(2) would not apply, where, as here, Dist. Ct. found in context of relevant conduct calculation fact that death resulted from sale of heroin by defendant, since term “offense of conviction” does not include concept of relevant conduct. As such, section 2D1.1(a)(2) applies only when resulting death was element of crime of conviction that was proved beyond reasonable doubt. On remand, Dist. Ct. is free to consider under section 3553(a)(1) whether death resulted as part of defendant’s conduct when considering his ultimate sentence.

In prosecution on drug conspiracy charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendants’ motion to suppress warrantless search of defendants’ garage and vehicle, where said search occurred minutes after informant reported to police that he had just seen cocaine in defendants’ garage while making arrangements for its purchase. Ct. rejected Dist. Ct.’s belief that doctrine of “consent once removed” applied, where record showed that no one other than informant had ever been invited into garage, and where informant was not in danger at time he informed police about presence of cocaine. Ct., though, found that inevitable discovery exception to exclusionary rule applied, since: (1) warrant would have been issued based upon what informant told police; and (2) delay in obtaining warrant would have risked disappearance of cocaine.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his 171-month sentence on 2010 drug conspiracy charge, where, although said sentence was consistent with terms of plea agreement calling for his sentence to be 66 percent of low end of applicable sentencing range, both parties had anticipated defendant’s sentence to be only 80 months. Portions of defendant’s habeas petition alleging that his counsel was ineffective for failing to alert him to true potential sentence were untimely, since habeas petition was filed more than one year after his conviction had become final. Fact that defendant raised other claims in habeas petition that were timely did not allow Dist. Ct. to consider his untimely claims. Moreover, defendant could not prevail on his timely claim that Dist. Ct. violated Alleyne, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013) by making findings of fact that increased his statutory mandatory minimum term, where Supreme Court has not found Alleyne to be retroactive.

In prosecution on charge of unlawful possession of firearm, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress firearm found in defendant’s residence after police placed GPS device on defendant’s vehicle without having previously obtained warrant. While Supreme Ct. in Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012), found that placement of GPS device on vehicles without search warrant or defendant’s consent violated 4^th Amendment, good-faith exception to exclusionary rule applied in instant case, since 7^th Circuit precedent allowed placement of GPS device on suspect’s vehicle without warrant in 2009, when instant GPS device was attached to defendant’s vehicle. Ct. also did not err in giving joint possession instruction to jury, where record showed that several individuals had potential access to defendant’s bedroom where gun was found.